About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
. federal law signed into law by president clinton in 1996. it says if a person is legally married in a state, the federal government can't recognize those marriages. that's where you talked about federal benefits heterosexual couples get and same sex couples do not. the prop 8 thing is bigger. while potentially it's confined to the state of california only, the question it out there having given the right to gay marriage could the state then take it away through proposition 8 passed by a majority of the vote nurse 2008. having taken that case, the court could get to the bedrock issue. can any state refuse to let same sex couples get married under the federal constitution. it could potentially be narrow or very far. >> pete, as i understand it, let me ask you. this one of these things, maybe the driving one, is defense of marriage act was about paying the estate act. where one of the two people said she didn't have to pay the estate tax because a married couple wouldn't have to. >> reporter: this is a case from new york. a woman named edie windsor who married her partner in canada.
to the clinton era rates is, we're going to do -- >> you might not get the benefit if you don't do anything to the deficit you're talking ten times the revenue if you go below the 98%. you can't return to clinton prosperity only raising taxes on 2%. it's different for all taxpayers. am i right? >> you're almost entirely wrong. >> why would raising just on the 2% get us back to the clinton prosperity you're talking about? we can't return to the spending levels either. >> getting to a sound fiscal position is necessary to protect the economy. if we don't do that, as this economy recovers, that recovery is going to be aborted and that's going to do damage. then the question is how you get there, and the president believes that we should raise revenues with a tax system that has been proven in the past to go along with very substantial -- >> you can't conflate the two. you have the entire -- >> joe, joe, if you go back to this, i'm not sure what you're arguing. >> raising on 2% is different than the other structure. >> the reason it's different is that the tax rate on everybody else is going to
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2